mangogrooveworkshop
|
| posted on 29/11/05 at 11:16 PM |
|
|
a smart crash video
And the doors still work.........Smart crashed at 70
|
|
|
|
|
gutball
|
| posted on 29/11/05 at 11:59 PM |
|
|
And into a solid concrete wall as well! Wow, am well impressed by that!! 
Be interesting to see what happened to the pedal area.
|
|
|
Oliver Jetson
|
| posted on 30/11/05 at 01:06 AM |
|
|
Stood up well structurally but anyone in a crash like that wud have been killed no questions - deceleration wud be phenominal - Head Injury Criteria
off the scale!!
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 30/11/05 at 09:21 AM |
|
|
As he walked round the front you could see that the pedals were pushed back.
Anyone in that car would not have been in good shape (but the same goes for almost any car at that speed).
David
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 30/11/05 at 09:49 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
Anyone in that car would not have been in good shape (but the same goes for almost any car at that speed).
I'm not so sure. All new european cars, including japanese cars designed for europe are designed to give the best results in EuroNCAP tests.
The safety systems are designed to give their maximum protection at 40 MPH (65km/h actually). Crash at a higher speed than this and you'll find
that all of your crumple zone has gone.
The Smart is just a bit older than NCAP. It was designed to be really stiff. The result is only 3 stars at NCAP but it will not crush too much at
70MPH. EuroNCAP themselves said that it would have scored higher if it had been less stiff as the car would have taken up more of the impact and the
crash test dummy less.
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 30/11/05 at 01:03 PM |
|
|
fact is that at that speed that type of crash is not the norm. More likely to roll over at that speed in a "real" incident, and I would
rather have the stiffness in a rollover thanks!
|
|
|
scotty g
|
| posted on 30/11/05 at 01:22 PM |
|
|
Remember watching this from last season, as i recall they also crashed what i seem to think was a Corsa in the same way and it faired a lot worse.
Slightly off topic but relevant to what Oliver said about decelaration, i watched a documentory a couple years ago about a NASA test pilot and he
survived a decelaration force of 45G's, he did need to have his cornias popped back in but nevertheless he survived.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 30/11/05 at 02:26 PM |
|
|
There is a problem with rapid deceleration in a car and it's nothing to do with crumple zones or safety cages, is is 3 point seatbelts.
A lecturer of mine was a researcher into medical electronics. He saw data of several people involved in this kind of accident. The seatbelt arrests
your forward movement so harshly that your spine impacts your sternem (sp?) and everything inbetween gets squished. It doesn't cause immediate
injury but your vital organs are said to have a shorter life expectancy afterwards.
4 point harnesses don't cross your chest and so don't cause the same injuries.
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 30/11/05 at 02:52 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
I'm not so sure. All new european cars, including japanese cars designed for europe are designed to give the best results in EuroNCAP tests.
The safety systems are designed to give their maximum protection at 40 MPH (65km/h actually). Crash at a higher speed than this and you'll find
that all of your crumple zone has gone.
The Smart is just a bit older than NCAP. It was designed to be really stiff. The result is only 3 stars at NCAP but it will not crush too much at
70MPH. EuroNCAP themselves said that it would have scored higher if it had been less stiff as the car would have taken up more of the impact and the
crash test dummy less.
But there's simply not enough room on a Smart to have much of a crumple zone. It a compromise of minimising decceleration and intrusion, and in
the Smart's case intrusion has to be virtualy zero.
Crumple zones do affect deceleration ,otherwise there would be no point in them. The more crumple zone you have, the less the deceleration and
hence less force on the body.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 30/11/05 at 04:23 PM |
|
|
Smarts have plenty of crumple zone. Remember that it is mid engined. Note also that the windcreen is very far forward. The nose looks short but the
front of the windcreen is further forwards than your feet.
Yes crumple zones do help with deceleration. That's not what I'm saying. If the safety cell in the smart were slightly less stiff, there
still would be no intrusion into the footwells but the effect would be like haveing more crumple zone, the car would absorb more of the crash energy
so that the passengers have to absorb less.
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 30/11/05 at 05:22 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
Smarts have plenty of crumple zone.
They have more than you would expect, but not anything like as much as a modern front engined car, which is the whole reason for the Tridion safety
cell.
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 30/11/05 at 07:34 PM |
|
|
They are also made of heavier guage steel, and have spot welds every 10mm apart, about 3 times closer than normal
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 3/12/05 at 05:37 PM |
|
|
They also have 3 layers of steel to make a double box section making it twice as stiff as a conventional monocoque for only 50% more weight.
As for less crumple zone than a normal front engined car, I'm not so sure. My wife's C3 is longer from footwell to bumper than the smart
but most of that space is taken up with engine where as the smart has crash absorbing structures.
Of course, the best thing is just not to crash.
|
|
|
